20 Comments:

Deedee was instrumental in getting light rail in downtown, getting the railroad out of the west side so the Gateway could be built, helped immensely in bringing the Olympics to Utah. There were many other accomplishments.Deedee as mayor was actually one of the best mayors SLC has ever had.

Let's pull out an example, shall we? In 1998, Deedee wanted to retain all of SLC's existing police force, but there was an $8 million budget shortfall, so she decided to sell main street to make up the difference.

In 2006, Rocky wants to hire several new police officers, so he proposes a property tax hike. Oh the humanity!

Or another:

In 1999, Deedee approves a no-bid RDA loan award to Big-D for the renovation of Brooks Arcade.

In 2000, Rocky kills this smell-taste-failing bill and opens it up to competitive bidding and alphagraphics chooses to locate their world headquarters there.

I know the script says that Rocky is all talk and no walk (thanks to the invaluable contributions of Brady Snyder and Heather May), but the Saint Deedee/Evil Rocky dialogue is just plain recockulous.

Under Deedee, the city tried for many years to get someone to redevelop the Brooks Arcade with an open process. No one was interested. Finally, after many years, Deedee found Big-D interested in restoring this beautiful bldg. Then Rocky kills the deal.And then Alphagraphics decides to move HQ to Utah (which had NOTHING to do with Rocky...they had already decided to relocate to SLC while Deedee was mayor) and they ended up locating in the Brooks Arcade that was not restored BUT DESTROYED! Only a tiny bit of the exterior was saved. The rest was destroyed. That was horrible.

Re: Main St. PlazaBack in the 1960s, the city had in its master plan the closure of Main St and turning it into a plaza...yes the same block where the LDS plaza now is. This idea had been around for a LONG, LONG time before it came to fruition.

The reason why no one wanted to restore the Brooks Arcade is because it was too damned expensive unless, thanks to Deedee, the RDA dumps an inordinate amount of money into it. The facade really was the only architecturally signficant feature (ever since the building was re-programmed after the closing of Auerbach's) and so rebuilding the interior was the logical thing to do.

As for the plaza, the City's Master Plan never designated it as the naughty-speech protection zone. That was the whole issue, the fact that the Church and the Corradini administration rolled out the "behavior guidelines" at the eleventh hour while up until that time it was the now infamous "piece of Paris." Furthermore, the Master Plan never contemplated selling it off, just closing it to vehicular traffic. It was always intended to remain a part of the city and, for that matter, the United States of America and her constitution.

If someone comes into your home, or any private property that you have legally purchased, and they start to call your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (I don't know your preference) a bitch, or telling you to fuck off, or even being annoyingly loud what are you going to do? Most likely you will ask them to leave. But what about their constitutional rights shawn? They have every right to say what they want. You get to decide whether or not they do it in your home or even in your yard.

When I worked security at the mall we often kicked people out for using offensive language. Cops would help us all the time. Does that mean they are unconstitutional? No. The mall is privately owned. Since it is their property they make the rules. Same thing with the main street plaza.

I dare you to go to the Capitol building in Washington D.C. and try using offensive language. You would be escorted out. Trust me I have seen it.

Your argument is petty because you don't like the mormon church. THat is the only reason you complain about the rules. It has nothing to do with constitutional right. Grow up.

logan your argument is just as petty because you're an apolgist for the mormon church.

The actions you describe are not allowed in public space- if you walk up to someone and call them a "bitch" and tell them to "fuck off" you are committing any number of misdemeanors, the most serious charge of which would be verbal assault.

The Church could very easily have kept that strip open to the public while still maintaining the proper decorum for all the virginal brides and their mothers, but found it politically advantagous to rile up their supporters (ie YOU) with the percieved image of wedding days ruined by hecklers.

The church is on record stating that the property in question would remain public, describing it even as shawn mentioned, a little piece of paris, before reneging on the deal (again as shawn describes) at the last minute, and demanding ceasation of all constitutional rights the moment a person stepped onto the property. Very Duplicitous.

All of this of course fails to address the question originally posed, "was deedee's sale of mainstreet- formerly public property to the church of jesus christ of latter day saints who after a misleading public relations campaign turned it into a private religious property- all to fund hiring more police officers, an accomplishment of note? Personally, I answer no.

in conclusion, your (petty) strawman argument is ridiculous and bears absolutely no understanding of the legal issues raised by the transaction, instead substituting a strong irrational reaction against the percieved erosion of your churches political power at the expense of the "liebral" institutions swarming like cockroaches all over this valley.

Mayor Anderson is a media whore. A few years back when the urban treehouse project on the west side was completed. This project was completed with donated monies from many groups and companies and numerous volunteers. But instead of highlighting this amazing contribution to the city he got up and highlighted how wonderful he was. He is a media grandstander. If he can get air time that is all that matters.

As a non-mormon I certainly think the sale of the block of main street was not appropiate and should not have happened.

No matter the original intention if I bought something for 8 million and people are unable to show respectful behavior I have to side with the "we own it we control it".

If main street was to be closed off because of a master plan and remain public property then the city should have waited until they could develop the little bit of paris downtown this would have saved us the controversy, lawsuits, and the general ill feelings caused on all sides of the issue.

I try my best to keep a civil tongue in my head, but Shawn continues to splatter this column with pure unadulterated crap. The city has sold "public" streets to all kinds of churches in this city. The only and you know it as well as anyone that the only and I do mean ONLY reason this sale received all of the publicity and rancor is because it was the oops Mormon church. If the catholics or Jews or Muslim had sealed the deal, and imposed any kind of restrictions in line with their beliefs, we would have been derided for even questioning the sale or the closure. Diversity, open-mindedness, multiculturalism, tolerance extends to everyone but a Mormon. You are full of it!! You can accuse Logan of being an apologist for the church. But you are a hateful, bigot. Everyone of my relatives who don';t live in Utah and aren't Mormon at all, think the plaza was great and the hullabaloo was bigoted garbage! And that joke of a mayor is the leading bigot! Their words not mine!

It is not a petty argument. Try and got to a restaurant, mall, grocery, anywhere, and start yelling obscenities. Not at anyone in particular. Try yelling at a bag of potato chips and see what will happen. You will be escorted out and when you try to say 'what about my freedom of speech?!!' They will tell you to take it to the sidewalk.

When people are jumping into wedding photos and screaming at brides that they are whores does not constitute free speech. It is HATE SPEECH!! The only reason they choose to do it is because it is a mormon wedding. I have seen it happen. (No I wasn't attending the wedding I just happened to be walking throught the plaza.) The bride was bawling and the 'free speech protestors' were relentless. Way to go Dex and Shawn, show that open minded liberal love that is going to take Salt Lake into great ideas and help us become a super city.

If I went to the gay parade and tried the same stunt I would be hauled off. You would call me closed minded, ultra-conservative. Nice double standard.

Welcome back Dex. I already know that this is going to get personal. I can't wait to hear what kind of names you will throw out. Heck you already started in the post above. Another way to show me the intelligent side of 'liberal open mindedness'.

the last entry, the one in which i apparently say a bunch of "pure, unadulterated crap" really takes me back to the days of the Plaza tussle.

see, SLC residents were told that they were, in essence, getting a public park. that means, and this was brought up as an example, that you could wear a tshirt that said "i support 10% beer and 3.2% tithing." That was what everyone thought until, at the very City Council meeting where approval of the sale was on the agenda, the behaviour guidelines were introduced. People were like, "whoa, where did this come from" and the Council voted along, as i hate to say it, along religious lines.

People felt like they were misled. They didn't oppose the sale itself they just didn't know that the "piece of paris" was intended to be "private religious property." Now, in the normal course of Planning & Zoning annals it would have just been a hiccup in the process, someone would have filed a lawsuit or sought a non-court resolution, and the sale or development permit would have been modified. But instead, people from bountiful and sandy and utah valley were all telling us in salt lake city we were anti-mormon and that it was nauvoo all over again. we just wanted to be able to use our main street in the manner to which we were led to believe. but in all the hysteria, which i cant say the church helped whip up but can say that lee benson in his column at a certain church-owned newspaper did (CHIEF OF THE MORMON-HATERS! ROCKY IS CHIEF OF THE MORMON-HATERS!, a simple Planning concern for those of us in Salt Lake City and especially those of us in the Avenues turned into some giant culture war in which we, the people with NO power, were the aggressors and oppressors.

Now I see the same vitriol coming back. The Main St. Plaza deal was poorly executed and like any poorly executed transaction, there were unintended and undesirable consequences. But to label people as "anti-Mormon" or "bigots" simply because they saw a poorly executed transaction - to which, by extension, they were a party to - is testament to the irrational and unhinged reaction coming from the Mormon community in those days. And it looks like we're not going to discuss the Main St Plaza issue in a calm, rational manner anytime soon.

logan, i'm sorry, but you need to reread my post. You've describe exactly when the church's efforts were unnecessary. That type of behavior would not be tolerating in front of temple square, free speech zone or not, because it is inciting, assualting, and disturbing- all violations of the penal code. WHETHER IT HAPPENS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR NOT. Sorry, just have to make sure you read it this time.

the situation you describe warrants a call to the police and having the offenders cited. It's the law.

Incidentally, do you know what church security does when someone refuses to leave the property when asked? Calls the cops. Church security will not forcible remove anyone except from temples.

So in the end, whether the church owns the property or not, the cops have to be called to squelch this behavior. Save the blushing brides!

In conclusion, since you still don't understand what you're talking about, and again resorting to emotional reactions and anecdotal evidence to back your claims, I must dismiss your arguments as petty. You're defending the church in an argument you can't win, simply because you don't understand the facts of legal public behavior, and you've bought (wholesale i might add) the lie that unless the church has absolute control over the plaza, these poor wedding parties will be helpless to stop the hecklers.

And the world will end.

Incidentally, for all your high and mighty talk of no name calling, you began by calling someone else petty and biased. It least I only called your argument petty.

My argument has been whether or not it is unconstitutional to not allow the language and other types of behavior on the plaza. I say that it is perfectly constitutional because the land is owned by the church. Just like I can kick people out of my house for wearing a shirt that offends me. Or at school if a kid wears a shirt that is offensive they are told to change it.